United States v. Champion , 384 F. App'x 249 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5084
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOREY BERNAL CHAMPION,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00381-FL-1)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal grand jury indicted Morey Bernal Champion
for possession of a firearm after having previously been
convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). Champion filed a motion to dismiss the indictment that
the district court denied. Champion then entered a guilty plea
to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his
motion to dismiss. The court sentenced Champion to fifty-one
months of imprisonment and Champion now appeals. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Champion argues that the district court
erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We
review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an
indictment de novo. United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 310
(4th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see United States v.
Thornton, 554 F.3d 443, 445 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing whether
state felony offense is a crime of violence de novo).
Champion argues that he was legally innocent of
violating § 922(g)(1) because his prior conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana was not
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. While
Champion’s argument is concededly foreclosed by United States v.
Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005), he argues that the
2
subsequent decisions in United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 337(2008), and United States v. Pruitt, 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir.
2008), have undermined this court’s holding in Harp. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal
authorities and conclude that our holding in Harp is consistent
with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez. Further, to the
extent Pruitt may be inconsistent with Harp, decisions by our
sister circuits are simply not binding upon this court.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3